Few Americans would challenge the fact that we face a disturbing decay in civic and
political involvement. Political reform has become a priority of many public interest
organizations which recognize the significance of reform to the achievement of their
policy goals. These reformers argue correctly that we face a fundamental crisis of
representative democracy: the majority of adults do not participate regularly in electoral
politics and have extremely limited choice when they do participate.

A movement to reform American systems of voting has grown dramatically in recent years.
Many Americans still are learning the basic language of voting system reform, but the
greater the understanding of the range of possible voting systems and their likely impact,
the more that adoption of proportional voting systems is winning support as a sensible
complement to other important reforms.

Full Representation Voting Systems

Proportional representation (PR) describes a range of voting systems used in most
democracies. The principle of PR is that parties or individuals should win seats in
legislative assemblies in proportion to their share of the popular vote. The more voters
who have the opportunity to elect candidates of choice, the more "proportional"
the results will be. PR contrasts with U.S.-style "winner-take-all" plurality
elections in which only a plurality of voters in a subjectively defined area wins
representation.

One way to measure representativeness is to determine the percentage of eligible voters
who help elect candidates of choice. In the 1994 elections to the House of
Representatives, barely 22% of eligible voters helped elect candidates. In contrast, over
75% of Germany's eligible voters in their 1994 national elections with a PR system helped
elect candidates. At the same time, these German voters had a far wider range of choice
than the (at best) two choices provided to American voters for House elections.

Such statistics demonstrate why PR has a more direct impact on political power than
other political reforms: winning seats means winning a direct share of power. PR makes
power more accessible by increasing the number of effective votes and the diversity of
winners. In plurality voting, most elected officials -- including all members of the House
-- come from "single-member districts," where winning requires gaining the most
votes in that district. Up to 50% of votes in a race often are "wasted" on
losers despite voters often having only two choices; in a three-person race, a majority
can waste their votes, as is regularly true in winner-take-all elections in Canada, India
and Great Britain.

Spreading political power, providing voters with more choices and allowing more
segments of society to earn a place at the table of policy-making are all important steps
to providing greater long-term stability for our democracy. When only one in five eligible
voters is electing someone to the House of Representatives and when most of those
fortunate voters live in congressional districts with essentially uncompetitive contests,
the "political center" is not grounded in the reality of what the majority of
voters truly want. When government is not representative, its actions are more likely to
ignore large segments of society and citizens are more likely to reject the legitimacy of
its proposed policies.

A Credible and Meaningful Reform

Theoretical arguments for PR voting systems often are quickly accepted by American
reformers, but historically many have questioned the viability of a movement to adopt PR.
Some have mistaken PR to be a monolith that could be measured by how it operated in one
other nation (an Israel or Italy, for example) rather than simply being a principle that
describes a range of systems that are working extremely well in many democracies. Others
mistakenly believe that PR's implementation would require constitutional change or demand
overly dramatic changes in our political culture.

The fact is that there are forms of PR that make sense for every kind of legislative
election. Candidate-based systems like preference voting could be used to elect local
governments, state legislatures and congressional delegations within states, while
party-based systems for state and congressional elections could maintain some
single-member districts, as with Germany's "mixed" PR system.

A movement for PR in fact already had relative success in the United States earlier
this century. Citizen initiatives led to the adoption of preference voting for city
council elections in two dozen cities, including New York, Cincinnati, Cleveland,
Worcester and Sacramento. Preference voting invariably was successful in achieving its
reformers' primary goal: undercutting the power of one-party political machines.
Unfortunately, this success led to these machines' unrelenting hostility. Although only
two of the first 26 attempts to repeal preference voting in cities around the nation were
successful, the formerly dominant political forces eventually outlasted reformers and --
with the help of racist and anti-leftist appeals -- repealed preference voting in all
cities except Cambridge (MA).

Implementing PR systems at all levels of government would increase vitality in our
democracy, ensure fairer representation of our society's diversity in elected bodies and
assist local, state and national governments in their efforts toward solving the complex
and contentious issues facing our nation. PR systems are not a panacea, but they could
provide dramatic improvements in how Americans interact with their government.

The Center: Catalyst and Clearinghouse

The Center for Voting and Democracy researches and disseminates information on
electoral systems that promote voter participation and fair representation -- primarily PR
systems in which most voters elect candidates of their choice. Its mission is founded on a
belief that, once introduced as a possible reform, PR holds up well to scrutiny in a wide
range of circumstances. Just as PR empowers voters by giving them more information and
more choices, information about PR provides an important opportunity to understand
our democracy and possible ways to reform it.

The Center acts as a national clearinghouse on voting system reform and a catalyst for
consideration of voting system changes. Founded in 1992 and funded primarily by
individuals and small private grants, the Center has pursued educational projects that in
general have sought to distribute information about voting systems to people able to use
this information in decisions about whether to support or adopt PR systems.

Here is a partial rundown of our activities. Representatives of the Center recently
have:

addressed the Voting Section of the U. S. Department of Justice, the annual meetings of
the National Association of Counties and the National Conference of State Legislatures and
several student groups and groups of foreign visitors through the United States
Information Agency;

testified in special sessions before charter commissions in Nassau County (NY), Miami
Beach (FL) and Detroit (MI) and advised other cities;

worked closely with government officials and community leaders seeking to reform New
York's Community School Board elections;

toured New Zealand at the invitation of electoral reformers during a successful 1993
referendum campaign in that country to adopt a PR system.

We also are frequent source for print, radio and television journalists and have been
guests on numerous radio and television programs. In addition, I have been asked to edit a
quarterly column on PR for the National Civic Review and to serve on the National
Civic League's Advisory Committee for its Voting Rights Act in Local Governance.

Board members and other volunteers play an essential role in our work. Among many
examples:

Board member Edward Still prepared a friend-of-the-court brief in support of cumulative
voting in a prominent voting rights case;

Board Secretary Howard Fain organized a PR forum in Worcester (MA) that led to favorable
press coverage and serious community interest;

Board member Marian Spencer organized our 1994 Champion of Democracy ceremony
that drew over half the Cincinnati city council and hundreds of others to honor 1994
winner Theodore Berry and 1993 winner Lani Guinier;

Board chair Matthew Cossolotto wrote commentaries for the New York Times, Christian
Science Monitor and several other national publications;

Board vice-chair Cynthia Terrell organized a research analysis of the 1994 congressional
elections that led to our well-received Dubious Democracy report (which is
summarized in chapter 3);

West Coast coordinator Steven Hill helped start Seattle's current campaign for
preference voting and was the central reason that the Elections Task Force of San
Francisco recommended putting PR systems before votes in a referendum;

California activist Jim Lindsay wrote a ballot-counting computer program for preference
voting that was used in a well-received study for Cambridge (MA) on computerizing its
ballot count;

North Carolina member Lee Mortimer drafted a proportional plan for his state's
congressional elections that received in-depth attention in the New York Times and
on National Public Radio;

Advisory Board Research Chair Douglas Amy wrote requested articles on PR for four
publications, including the journal of the Poverty and Race Research Action Council.

Beyond the Record: The Center's Catalyst Role

Beyond its concrete record, the Center can claim more intangible successes in raising
the issue of PR in a variety of contexts. Simply put, three years ago PR was rarely
discussed in national circles. Due to a lack of information -- and indeed, disinformation
about how PR systems work in the many other democracies using them -- most public interest
leaders and elected officials dismissed without debate the possibility of voting system
reform in the United States. Today:

Rep. Cynthia McKinney (D-Ga.) is introducing legislation to allow states to adopt forms
of PR for Congressional elections.

State legislatures in North Carolina, California and Washington have held hearings on
PR, in each case hearing from members of the Center.

An elections task force in San Francisco recommended that city voters choose among four
voting systems, including three forms of PR, in a citywide referendum that may take place
in 1996.

Other charter commissions -- again, all of which have sought and received information
from the Center -- in Oakland (CA), Detroit (MI), Santa Fe (NM), Cincinnati(OH), Missoula
(MT) and Miami Beach (FL) are seriously considering PR.

Initiative campaigns to adopt PR are underway in Eugene (OR) and Seattle (WA).

Several organizations such as the Center for Policy Alternatives and Americans for
Democratic Action have advocated consideration of PR after meeting with Center
representatives.

Columnists for papers like the Washington Post, Cleveland Plain Dealer, Chicago
Tribune and New York Times have touted PR and the Center.

Goals for 1995-1996

The Center is committed to ensuring that PR systems are viable options for cities and
states that must draw new district lines after the U.S. census in 2000. Toward achieving
this decade-long goal, the Center already is working on the following projects:

Increasing production and dissemination of multi-media educational materials,
including a series of factsheets, the Center's already-developed slide show on PR and an
information video.

Forming coalitions of individuals and organizations to seek local, state and national
commissions to examine voting systems and other electoral reforms.

Studying PR in communities that have adopted it to comply with the federal Voting
Rights Act and disseminate study results to other communities.

Researching past national, state and local elections and developing alternative
electoral plans that could be used for future elections.

Providing technical assistance in implementation of PR for both private
organizations (such as university campuses) and governmental bodies.

Opening a comprehensive and up-to-date resource library on the history of voting
systems in the United States and around the world.

Developing curriculum for teaching about voting systems at K-12 and university
levels with the assistance of the many educators who have joined the Center.

Hiring regional coordinators on the West Coast, New England, Southeast and other
regions to work closely with grassroots reformers in states.

Training reformers to give presentations on voting systems to schools and
community groups.

Holding a national conference on November 11-12 in Boston (MA).

The Center's successes have come with relatively small expenses. Through the work of
volunteers, the partial donation of time by its director and careful use of resources, the
Center has had an impact far beyond what might be indicated by its budget. Yet additional
support is critical to move the debate about PR to the next level where actual adoption
and implementation is possible.

To finance this growth, the Center has approached a number of foundations -- one of
which, the HKH Foundation, recently gave the Center its first general operating expenses
grant -- and expects to receive more support soon. Meanwhile, it remains grateful to its
dedicated members who provide the foundation for its work.

Voting and Democracy Report: 1995

I believe that Voting and Democracy Report: 1995 will be helpful to a
wide range of readers. Organized into several broad subject categories, its 78 articles
include up-to-date reports on recent elections and electoral changes and arguments for
political reform, with a particular emphasis on PR.

Chapter One makes the case for PR in the United States. Former Member of Congress John
Anderson, who chairs our Advisory Board, leads off with an article about how PR would open
up American politics. Other contributions include arguments for PR from the political left
and political right.

Our 1995 report has four "Spotlights" that focus on particular subjects after
Chapters One, Four, Five and Six. In this year's spotlight are: examples of testimony for
PR; preference voting in Cambridge (MA); our slide show on preference voting; and the
historic 1994 elections in South Africa.

Chapter Two looks back at the history of the movement for PR in the United States.
Included are the writings of Charles Buckalew, who was a strong voice for PR in the United
States Senate in the 1860s, excerpts from Kathleen Barber's important new book Proportional
Representation and Election Reform in Ohio and a history of the single-member district
law for Congressional elections.

Chapter Three examines the 1994 elections in the United States and their depressingly
low voter turnout and general lack of competition. Chapter Four reviews the use and
consideration of PR for local election. It includes several articles on cumulative voting,
ranging from Robert Brischetto's review of how cumulative voting worked in 16 recent Texas
elections to Richard Timpone's intriguing study of the impact of different voting systems.
The chapter ends with my critique of cumulative voting as a general reform option and
reports on upcoming city campaigns for preference voting.

Chapter Five analyzes why PR systems have drawn so much attention in voting rights
cases, with several important articles. They include our amicus brief in a
cumulative voting case by Edward Still and Pamela Karlan, Steven Mulroy's review of U.S.
Justice Department policy on PR and Samuel Issacharoff's provocative analysis of how
recent Supreme Court rulings may have destabilized single-member district elections in the
United States.

Chapter Six provides a comprehensive analysis of the full range of political reform
movements in the United States, with insightful articles on presidential election reform,
"motor voter" implementation, new voting technologies, campaign finance reform,
term limitations, partisan gerrymandering, ballot access, fusion, "none of the
above" voting, the Senate filibuster, congressional reform, the "information
superhighway" and representation of women.

Chapter Seven focuses on elections and electoral reform around the world. Authors
analyze recent elections in El Salvador, Mexico, Brazil, Italy, Sweden, Germany, Hungary,
Poland and Europe (for the European parliament). Other articles address the impact and
prospective impact of reforms in New Zealand, Japan, Israel and Italy. Also included are
updates on reform movements in two other winner-take-all democracies, Canada and the
United Kingdom, and analysis of different method for increasing representation of women
and minorities. The chapter ends with a survey of election methods around the world and
acknowledgement of the passing of author and leading British reformer Enid Lakeman and
several American reformers.

After this introduction, you will find short arguments made for PR from our members.
They reflect both the diverse reasons why many people like PR and the perceptiveness of
our members.

Is Voting and Democracy Report: 1995 complete? Of course not, with such a
large subject. Nevertheless, I am proud to accept ultimate responsibility for the report's
contents, yet quick to acknowledge the invaluable contributions of my wife and colleague
Cynthia Terrell, our dedicated student coordinator Karen Taggart and reviewers Thomas
Lundberg and David and Catherine Richie. Finally, this report would not be possible
without the many authors who donated their time and energy. I thank them for their skill,
knowledge and patience.

Rob Richie has directed The Center for Voting and Democracy since its formation in
1992.

In Detroit, there have been three mayors in the past two years and the current one has come under scrutiny. Perhaps a system like instant runoff voting will help bring political stability to motor city.